Wave packet interpretation

  • I
  • Thread starter selfsimilar
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Double slit
  • #1
selfsimilar
11
6
TL;DR Summary
In an old paper the authors claim that a wave packet of a sort can explain the double slit experiment.
  • Like
Likes kurt101
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #3
selfsimilar said:
A thought crossed my mind that a wave packet might explain the double slit experiment
Is there something unexplained about the double-slit experiment? If so, what?
 
  • Like
Likes Lord Jestocost
  • #4
Nugatory said:
Is there something unexplained about the double-slit experiment? If so, what?
My understanding of the paper is that it tries to reproduce the results of the double slit experiment by assuming electron, photon, etc. as a nondispersive wave packet not a particle or a wave( plane wave).

"Finally, it should be emphasized that the wave function used here is a classical entity that travels in physical space, in sharp contrast with the quantum mechanical wave function that exists only in an abstract space. As a consequence, there is no collapse of the wave function, but instead we have the action of the central part of the field which can represent a light particle"
 
Last edited:
  • #5
selfsimilar said:
My understanding of the paper is that it tries to reproduce the results of the double slit experiment by assuming electron, photon, etc. as a nondispersive wave packet not a particle or a wave( plane wave).

"Finally, it should be emphasized that the wave function used here is a classical entity that travels in physical space, in sharp contrast with the quantum mechanical wave function that exists only in an abstract space. As a consequence, there is no collapse of the wave function, but instead we have the action of the central part of the field which can represent a light particle"
I see no problem with this assumption as so far as we restrict all microscopic physics to the double slit experiment. It can be proven that this feature of quantum mechanics can be simulated by some hidden classical dynamics. However that's so far as it can go. As soon as you have two particles (entanglement) no classical underlying theory is to be found.

Note that the double slit was so shocking at the beginning because (1) it was totally unexpected that electrons and other matter particles behaved wavy (2) an interference patterns appear even if you send one particle at the time (not that the electron cannot be split into two and that even if it is a wave you have to tell me what is the wave made of). Also how does that explain other features of quantum mechanics? Quantized energy levels? Hydrogen atom?
 
  • Like
Likes selfsimilar
  • #6
pines-demon said:
I see no problem with this assumption as so far as we restrict all microscopic physics to the double slit experiment. It can be proven that this feature of quantum mechanics can be simulated by some hidden classical dynamics. However that's so far as it can go. As soon as you have two particles or entanglement no classical underlying theory is to be found.

Note that the double slit was so shocking at the beginning because (1) it was totally unexpected that electrons and other matter particles behaved wavy (2) an interference patterns appear even if you send one particle at the time (not that the electron cannot be split into two and that even if it is a wave you have to tell me what is the wave made of).
Thanks for the reply. Yes, soon after posting and thinking about it I thought the same i.e. what about the rest. So I thought that later citations might have picked up on it and developed it further. Although they have many citations but they are allover the place with optics being a major subject.

But your question about what are they made of, I would suspect they will tell you to be something like EM not made of "anything" , just a mathematical entity(field) with some parameter characterizing them. But I really don't know what they will say about entanglement (maybe long tail??)
 
  • #7
selfsimilar said:
But your question about what are they made of, I would suspect they will tell you to be something like EM not made of "anything" , just a mathematical entity(field) with some parameter characterizing them. But I really don't know what they will say about entanglement (maybe long tail??)
The rhetorical question is to make you say "electron field, duh" (which is exactly what any modern theory would actually requires).
 
  • #8
pines-demon said:
The rhetorical question is to make you say "electron field, duh" (which is exactly what any modern theory would actually requires).
Yes of course. Although they have the model for Dirac and Klein-Gordon , but no interaction picture in sight. Since it is very old paper and their last published is 2004, they are either dead or have faded away like a good soldier:smile:
 
  • Like
Likes pines-demon

Similar threads

  • Quantum Physics
2
Replies
36
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
942
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
18
Views
2K
Replies
28
Views
4K
Replies
19
Views
1K
  • Quantum Physics
Replies
1
Views
930
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
17
Views
2K
Replies
32
Views
2K
Back
Top